Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Reading that notice shows that the US has adopted the UK's legendary Red Tape Gobbledygook standard when it comes to the release of information.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Not sure how you mean, maybe I read too many of them but it seems fairly clear to me. DSCA is giving notice to Congress that State has approved the FMS of 50 Block IB Baseline 2 upgrade kits. They give general information about what the proposed Sale includes, what the program cost is estimated to be, why State approved, and contact information if Congress wants more information. All pretty standard.Lord Jim wrote:Reading that notice shows that the US has adopted the UK's legendary Red Tape Gobbledygook standard when it comes to the release of information.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It was providing information like "There will be no adverse impact on US readiness as a result of the proposed sale", that I was joking referring to. I keep forgetting that in the US you have to have an arrow and label on a gun telling the owner which end to point at the target otherwise if someone shoots themselves the manufacturer will get sued.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I think that means the sale will not affect the US military's stock being held in reserve. IOW it's not being sourced out of the reserves or taking away from future reserves.Lord Jim wrote:It was providing information like "There will be no adverse impact on US readiness as a result of the proposed sale", that I was joking referring to. I keep forgetting that in the US you have to have an arrow and label on a gun telling the owner which end to point at the target otherwise if someone shoots themselves the manufacturer will get sued.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
It makes sense and I understand, what I was getting at was the way it was phrased, I have a severe aversion to long winded and legalese phrasing of simple points that is all.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Me too, but in this instance the wording comes out of a (mandated) tick-box exercise.Lord Jim wrote:I have a severe aversion to long winded and legalese phrasing of simple points
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well, it's a legally mandated thing so...Lord Jim wrote:I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
So if we work on the point of view that we will have upgraded Phalanx fitted to type 45 , 26 & 31 making total of 33 units.
12 x type 45
16 x type 26
5 x type 31
this would leave 17 units for the rest of fleet which makes the request for 50 kits sound a bit low when we will / could need 6 for the two Carriers which then leaves 11
P,s was only me who got a warning
12 x type 45
16 x type 26
5 x type 31
this would leave 17 units for the rest of fleet which makes the request for 50 kits sound a bit low when we will / could need 6 for the two Carriers which then leaves 11
P,s was only me who got a warning
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4104
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Let's try and find a solution rather than get you bannedTempest414 wrote:was only me who got a warning
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Sunday Times quoting “experts” who say the Albions are safe but at least 2 T23s will be scrapped. Anyone has any idea when we should expect an MDP update?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Does it say whether they are the same two that have been alongside as "training ships"?Repulse wrote:at least 2 T23s will be scrapped
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I just hate formsabc123 wrote:Well, it's a legally mandated thing so...Lord Jim wrote:I hate "Tick box", exercises as well. They always miss something.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Well it does seem that if the RN lose the tied up t23 it may be the best of the worst options
Well i can hear the politicians now that when we get the 5 T31 "we are growing the navy blah blah blah" never mind about cutting it to shreds in this decade
Well i can hear the politicians now that when we get the 5 T31 "we are growing the navy blah blah blah" never mind about cutting it to shreds in this decade
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thought currently it was a T23 and a T45 (HMS Daring) tied up? Didn’t say which ones - but would have thought Argyll + Lancaster and maybe Iron Duke.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Does it say whether they are the same two that have been alongside as "training ships"?Repulse wrote:at least 2 T23s will be scrapped
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
they will be sold and not scraped a number of navies were given notice some time back
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Maybe 2 type 45s was rumoured save a lot more money than type 23 don’t need to upgrade engines.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If T23, do not need to modify CMS, SAM, which will be also expensive.
Diesel gen is also being replaced, but I’m afraid it’s already done?
Diesel gen is also being replaced, but I’m afraid it’s already done?
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Donald
Tip of the iceberg I think. But once they go it’s hard to see them coming back, makes type 31 look even less credible may as well just increase type 26 numbers to 9.
Tip of the iceberg I think. But once they go it’s hard to see them coming back, makes type 31 look even less credible may as well just increase type 26 numbers to 9.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Thanks. Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.SW1 wrote:Donald
Tip of the iceberg I think. But once they go it’s hard to see them coming back, makes type 31 look even less credible may as well just increase type 26 numbers to 9.
T45 engine replace cost vs T23 CMS/CAMM replace cost, I think T23's are more expensive. This is my comment. Therefore, disbanding 2 T23 "now" = before upgrade will be better than 2 T45. This is my point, but I think you have other idea?
Completely independent issue, but I think MDP cutting 2 "almost unused" escorts will be "good". The cut it self is bad. But, if any cut is to happen, it must be clear to the audience. Now RN is not using 19 escorts, only 17 (or 18). We are pretending it is "temporary" and just caused by man-power crisis and will be handled soon.
But, I think the man-power crisis will not be handled within a decade. Actually, HMG/MOD/RN is trying it for the past decade. Newest promise for increase in man-power on SDSR2015 failed. I'm not saying they are NOT trying hard, I am just saying even with trying hard, it is not easy.
So, just like RN did with Carrier Strike, I think MDP shall declare, "RN is to gap 2 frigates for ~10 years (until ~2028) simply because of lack of money. In place, 8 T26 and 5 T31 program cost was secured to fill the gap by 2028". To the audience, "RN is clearly sacrificing, so no more cut can take place". In reality, RN loses almost nothing, but a redundancy hull (or two hulls).
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Cant' really see T45 being sold since the government is committed to carrier battle group now....., well I hope not anyways.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
What I want is for an HONEST paper to be the result of the MDP rather than the usual pile of horse spin. Losing two T-23s early has been mentioned many times and would not hurt the RN. As has been said before the RN needs to concentrate on getting its manpower issues eased so that it can use what it already has. Mind you I think keeping the Albions is not the best idea but they are protected by the "We still need to be able to storm the Normandy beaches", brigade, but that is for another thread.
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
But with 2 ships less that RN don't use anyway, manning issues will remain just like they were.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Exactly, how much does it cost to keep them at low readiness? I'm going to assume not much, there would be no point in scrapping theses escorts if they don't cost much, and they're not active so hardly a burden on manpower. It doesn't cost much to keep them, and I'd rather have them there of they are needed in a time of crisis than to not have them(but HMG hasn't really gone for that logic in the past).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The most recent example of what is costs to bring back a vessel to service, once it has been left "just to sit there" for a few years, is from the Albion classKeithdwat579 wrote:not active so hardly a burden on manpower. It doesn't cost much to keep them
- next time around the "inactive" vessel will have a crew of 40
Picking some numbers from Guto Bepp (answers to Parliamentary Qs Feb- March):
"The average annual running cost for a Type 23 Frigate and a Type 45 Destroyer is approximately £11 million and £13.5 million respectively"
- running costs should mean marginal costs, w/o capital costs, but no guarantees
whereas
"The Ministry of Defence has been allocated £12.7 million in 2018-19 for essential EU exit preparations. This will fund preserving three Off-Shore Patrol Vessels, should they be needed to control and enforce UK waters and fisheries"
- so that is £4.2 mln per vessel per year (much simpler ships than T23s/ 45s) when it is done in a way that you can shanghai a crew and put it on a ship, to make it ready to sail
But you can also put it in terms of providing AD cover for a TF costs the same as being in heightened readiness... to count more fish
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)